Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science Technology

For California, an Earthquake Early Warning System Is Up and Running 152

Posted by timothy
from the timely-in-light-of-christchurch dept.
autospa writes "In California's Coachella Valley around Palm Springs, a state-of-the-art, first-in-the-world earthquake early warning system in now installed and operational. Twelve locations are now in place with 120 sites planned, all meant to detect an earthquake and give people a chance to get under a table, or in the case of a fire station, get the engines outside of the building."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

For California, an Earthquake Early Warning System Is Up and Running

Comments Filter:
  • So, barring an actual earthquake, how do they know this thing works?

    I assume this isn't predicting, but setting off alarm bells as soon as possible?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So, barring an actual earthquake, how do they know this thing works?

      They just pick up the sensor, shake it really hard, and listen for alarms.

    • It's little more than a fancy network of seismometers. Why wouldn't it?

      • If the video cameras detect the cats acting weird, then that means there's going to be an earthquake soon. It was easy to verify its accuracy - small earthquakes happen all the time in various parts of California, and they checked the video recordings and the cats had been acting weird just before the quakes.

        • by nospam007 (722110) *

          "If the video cameras detect the cats acting weird..."

          According to my cat, there's an earthquake every day.

          But joking aside, I would have thought fire-stations would be built earthquake-proof, that would be the sensible thing.

          • Nothing is earthquake-proof. You can build an *incredibly* rigid structure. But when you do, the quake will be just that much stronger, and knock it down anyway. Earthquake engineering isn't designing structures to not take damage. It's designing structures to take the minimum amount of damage. In some cases, entire sections of floor might be considered sacrificial - beams are designed to bend side to side (by cutting the top and bottom off the I) instead of passing the force to the column (causing the
            • Given CA's *generally* pleasant climate, I wonder what the savings might be for parking the trucks *outside* all the time. Even under a fabric canopy to stop sun damage.

              Also Given the general frequency of significant quakes and the increasing likeliness of a 'big' quake, perhaps parking trucks outside might be a plausible idea?

              • "the increasing likeliness of a 'big' quake"

                Just because we haven't had a big quake recently, doesn't make it more likely. Just the same as how losing 20 games of blackjack makes you no more or less likely to win the 21st.

                • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @06:44PM (#35306702)
                  Your argument is flawed, but I understand your confusion :)

                  Events that are unrelated to one another, such as games of Blackjack from independent decks of cards, correctly do not influence the other events.

                  However, the CA quakes are not unrelated events. They occur because one tectonic plate is slipping past another. The longer that slip does not happen, the greater likelihood that it will happen in the future. The slip *will* happen. When it does, it will depend on how much force is built up.

                  Considering the force behind a moving tectonic plate is massive, the longer it is pent up without slippage means that energy is being stored up until a failure at some point along the fault and it breaks free. It is possible that we will see a series of smaller quakes rather than a big one, but simple physics dictate that once the object (plate) starts moving it's going to keep on moving unless equivalent force is applied to stop it.


                  (This new formatting system is sucky sucky. I'm using HTML formatting but it's still making the lines massively separated :( )
                • I thought the principle behind card counting in Blackjack is that each game alters the odds for the next game. If I've seen a whackload of face cards played over the 20 games, I can be fairly confident that there's going to be a bunch of small fry cards left over. It's only at the point where the cards are re-shuffled that the odds are reset.
              • The regions of California which are prone to earthquakes are all along the coast. The weather in these regions tends to be quite wet and humid (the fog in San Francisco borders on legendary), and as such, rust is a substantial problem for vehicles. Keeping the trucks harbored inside makes them much easier to maintain. Granted, Southern California earthquake regions tend to be drier, but again, it's easier for fire services to maintain their vehicles when they're kept inside-- not to mention that it's easier

                • My question was comparing the risk of having the trucks indoors to the added costs of keeping them outside. Sort of like insurance. You pay money hoping you don't ever need it, but peace of mind knowing that if you do it's there.

                  If they consider the risk of having the trucks indoors significant enough, it would be worth a cost benefit analysis comparing keeping them outside or in structures where collapse is not a serious concern.
                • You mean the largest population centers are all along the coast. San Bernardino is not on the coast and it is very prone to earthquakes.

          • by sjames (1099)

            Earthquake-proof is a relative term. No matter how well built it is, it's still not a bad idea to pull the trucks into the driveway just in case.

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          If the video cameras detect the cats acting weird

          How do you differentiate between "normal"-cat weird, and "earthquake"-cat weird??

          I find cats act weird at the best of times.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      It detects an earthquake is on it's why. Remember earthquakes travel down the fault. So when i happens at point A, Point Be might be far enough to get 30 seconds of warning.

    • by toastar (573882)
      Who would of thought the speed of light through a wire is faster then then the speed of sound through rock.
    • Assuming this is the same QuakeGuard as mentioned in the article, here is their technical explanation http://www.seismicwarning.com/technology/waveseparation.php [seismicwarning.com]
      • From QuakeGuard technical page: "The QuakeGuard technology detects the non-destructive P-waves while filtering other sources of vibrations that can lead to false alarms. The elimination of false warnings is a result of QuakeGuard's patented DSP algorithms that filter detected vibrations to isolate the signature waveforms of a seismic event that has just occurred. Depending on the geological composition of the terrain and the distance from the epicenter of the seismic event, a warning of 10 to 60 seconds
    • by pz (113803)

      I assume this isn't predicting, but setting off alarm bells as soon as possible?

      The summary would certainly suggest that (emphasis added):
      In California's Coachella Valley around Palm Springs, a state-of-the-art, first-in-the-world earthquake early warning system in now installed and operational.

    • So, barring an actual earthquake, how do they know this thing works?

      I assume this isn't predicting, but setting off alarm bells as soon as possible?

      Quick to ask but slow to RTFA? Heh.

      An earthquake creates two waves. The first one triggers the alarm before the second one reaches you. And yes, it'll be clear that it works after the first quake hits. However, they're already tracking the seismic data reliably anyway.

    • by istartedi (132515)

      Japan has been doing this for a while.

      I don't expect to have a quake alarm in my house. However, if I'm riding a train I'd like to know that it will come to a stop when it gets an alarm, or that if I'm about to cross the Oakland Bridge, the metering lights will stay stuck on red. BTW, if that ever happens, DON'T RUN THE LIGHT. You might be really, really sorry.

      I know the Japanese are already doing this with trains. A system like this ought to be a prerequisite before we even think of building high speed

    • by peter303 (12292)
      They've doing this in japan and Mexico for years. Their quakes tend to happen offshore with a couple minutes warning before the more energetic phases.
  • by jlechem (613317) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @02:48PM (#35303052) Homepage Journal
    Let's see 3 paragraphs with no real info. What seismic level are they talking about? A 2, 3, 4, 5, or what? In Utah we got lots of 2 and 3s all the time. California is even worse. Who decides when it's time to hit the panic button? And if it's a person that means they have to have staff available 24x7. Still it seems pretty cool they're trying to solve this problem.
    • by drerwk (695572) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:00PM (#35303226) Homepage
      Without reading the article, it is a computer which then calls the fire department garage doors and they open. The FD will not collapse on the Engines but the door may jam, or not work for lack of electricity. Also some elevators may stop and open at the nearest floor. hospital generators may start. That sort of thing. I am not expecting a text that say duck. I was in Santa Cruz eating dinner for the '89 and it was terrifying. Even though the fire engines got out, the roads were choked and they could not get anywhere. After about 15 minutes, I could count about 6 fires in the distance. I had even heard it might give warning in surgery to pull out instruments and cover the patient to keep dust out.
      • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:11PM (#35303392) Homepage
        I think you're correct (I read TFA, as usual it doesn't help).

        The big question will be the false positive rate. If you're randomly opening up doors / turning on large, expensive generators and scrambling OR teams on a regular basis, it will get shut off like all of the OTHER alarm systems that cry wolf repeatedly. Presumably, this bit of wisdom has been considered by the engineering team and it's acceptable (if not dozens of Slashdot posts will helpfully remind them). Be nice to have more details.
        • by blair1q (305137)

          How often does your UPS false-positive on you?

          Those times it beeps when you aren't expecting it, it's actually detected an intermittent fault in its input.

          Reliability is easy if you're in control of the entire system.

          • When my UPS squeals because it detected a transient spike, or if it's just a cheap Chinese capacitor having a bad day, it doesn't open up my garage doors, set off sirens and start the generators. I'd be a tad miffed if it did that all the time. Some false positives are easier to deal with than others.
      • by geekoid (135745)

        And if it pans out, there could even be special earth quake lights to indicate to driver to get away from bridges and tunnels, and pull over to the right.
        On the other hand, they could make the doors out of a thin material, and then drive through them, if needed.

      • The bullet trains in Japan have been equipped with earthquake warning systems since 92 [wikipedia.org]. Makes sense, given the trains are running over a hundred miles an hour, and there are so many earthquakes there.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      "What seismic level are they talking about? A 2, 3, 4, 5, or what?"

      what do you think? do you really think it would go off on a 2,3 or 4?

      • by hedwards (940851)

        Indeed, and it probably shouldn't go off for a 5 either. I remember years back when we had that 5.3 magnitude quake, there was some property damage, but all in all pretty minimal, you'd have to be in a really strange situation for that to be worth mentioning. Anything built to code down there is going to be able to handle an earth quake in the low 5 range without any problems at all.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          hmmm, I was thinking about that. TO my thinking, the min you want is one that doesn't casyue damage, but can be felt easily, and only happen once or twice a year. This way you could have a cheap built in testing process with no harm.

          Hey, we got a 5.3* and the garage doors didn't opne.

          *I really don't know what number to use, off the cuff 5.3 seems a good one. The the earthquake studying people choose it.
          Sorry about that, I just got done reading Zap Brannigan quotes.

      • by styrotech (136124)

        Richter magnitude is only important to seismologists and has very little bearing on how serious an earthquake is. It is a measure of the energy released - not how bad the shaking is.

        Any early warning system will be calibrated by acceleration and the magnitude won't come into it.

        No instruments measure the richter magnitude directly - they measure the shaking and the magnitude is calculated after the fact based on lots of those readings taken in different places.

        I hope the media (and the public) would stop re

        • by geekoid (135745)

          Yes there are other factors, but for common use, it's fine.

          you're like a soil specialist bitching because the layman sues the word 'dirt'.

          • by styrotech (136124)

            Yes there are other factors, but for common use, it's fine.

            Really? Richter magnitude is nearly meaningless in common use. People would have a far easier time instinctively relating to a peak G-Force number than an exponential scale of energy released that has no units and requires all kinds of inaccurate mental arithmetic about how far away, how deep, duration, geology etc before you can relate it to any actual human experience of the event.

            you're like a soil specialist bitching because the layman sues the

        • by khallow (566160)

          I hope the media (and the public) would stop referring to the Richter scale so much and use things like peak ground acceleration and/or modified mercalli scales etc to describe how bad an earthquake is.

          Everyone uses the moment magnitude system. And it's worth remembering that moment magnitude can be calculated automatically within a few seconds of the quake and the energy release is the most important information about the size of an earthquake.

          Peak ground acceleration and the modified Mercalli scales depend on local conditions and hence don't directly measure the characteristics of the earthquake. The latter at higher rungs in the scale is evaluated well after the fact when someone comes in and looks

          • by styrotech (136124)

            I'm not saying magnitude measurements/scales aren't important - just that the public and the media uses them in a context where intensity measurements/scales are much more relevant to the human experience of the event. As if the magnitude of the quake is the be-all and end-all when talking about actual physical effects and results of the quake, and get puzzled as to how smaller quakes can be much more intense.

            I don't really care much about which measurements or scales are used for either magnitude or intens

    • by iamhigh (1252742)
      You should check out Nova Science Now on PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/ [pbs.org]

      They had a segment on this last night. I am sure they have an article about it, but what would /. be without indirect sources?
  • by Compaqt (1758360)

    shutdown -P now

    • Oh, dear. I hope it's not running on Windows (and instead on some dedicated *nix server). We'd be setting ourselves up for a doosie.

      • Re:And (Score:5, Funny)

        by olsmeister (1488789) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:06PM (#35303328)
        I'm sure they understand that Windows are one of the first things to go during an earthquake, and you don't want to be anywhere around them.
      • Oh, dear. I hope it's not running on Windows (and instead on some dedicated *nix server). We'd be setting ourselves up for a doosie.

        Are you kidding? Us Windows users are already trained on how to deal with outages. It's you Linux wussies I'm worried about: "O NOESSS MY UPTIME!!" *slits wrists*

    • by geekoid (135745)

      OK, where you making an moderately clever Linux joke, or a brilliant Earthquake joke?

  • by pudding7 (584715) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @02:53PM (#35303120)
    Meaning, no false alarms. Set the thresholds such that it doesn't go off for undetectable or even very minor quakes. With only seconds to act, people need to feel confident in reacting without a second thought. If the alarm sounds and the teacher says "Hmmm, let's see if it's really a big one before taking cover." then it's lost some of it's usefulness. Same with the automated stuff. It would be unfortunate to get to a point where the alarm goes off and doors roll up, gas is cut off, etc and people immediately think "Crap, not again. Now I have turn the gas back on and close the damn doors."
    • by pz (113803)

      If the alarm sounds and the teacher says "Hmmm, let's see if it's really a big one before taking cover." then it's lost some of it's usefulness.

      Heck, it's lost all of its usefulness in that case. But don't forget that schools will have drills, too, with response compliance assessments, so the suggested scenario of wait-and-see is unlikely.

      • by sjames (1099)

        Don't be so sure. When I was in school, the fire drill schedule ALWAYS leaked out. By the time we were seniors, we were in the loop as well. When an unscheduled alarm sounded, we were told to keep working while the teacher checked on it. (to be fair, we were on the ground floor, the building was brick, and the window doubled as a fire exit so we could have waited for smoke to come in under the door and still have been in no actual danger).

        It is always possible to score high on drills and still not respond a

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Just st it to go off at 5.0 or higher.
      In frequent enough not to be a hassle, frequent enough so you can exercise the system,.

    • by natehoy (1608657) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:36PM (#35303744) Journal

      As far as I can see, there's not much chance of false alarms unless someone drops something heavy right next to one of the seismometers or something. This is detecting actual earthquakes. The chances of actual false alarms are pretty low. The earth is shaking somewhere. In fact, this is data seismologists already gather as a routine.

      The difference here is that it's propagating out an automated warning that can be responded to automatically to nearby locations. The key is "automatically". As in, people don't need to react. You'll only get a minute or two of warning at best - you want this to be automated.

      Signal hits the fire station, and the fire station opens the doors immediately (so the quake can't jam them shut if power is lost or the doors get shaken out of track, for example). Alarm tells the firefighters to go get in the truck and pull it into the parking lot in case the building collapses. That's a bunch of fire engines and ambulances you've kept in service when they're likely to be needed very, very soon.

      Signal hits a hospital, and they spin up their generator (so it's already running if the Big One hits and they lose power) and sound a tone in operating rooms telling doctors the floors might shake so starting a delicate cut around the brainstem is a bad idea for a few minutes.

      Signal hits a large commercial building, and the elevators all go to the nearest floor, open their doors, engage all friction locking mechanisms, and tell everyone to get out of the elevator right now.

      Bridges might drop gates to keep people who are not on them yet off them. Water and gas mains might close some containment valves. Traffic lights might all turn red so cars stop. Bell goes off at the school telling the kids to get near a reinforced wall.

      Nothing that people need to take conscious effort to react to, just automated stuff that makes the incoming quake a little easier to deal with. Also nothing that would cause all life to come to a complete stop. There'll still be enough gas and water pressure in the systems that most people wouldn't even notice the outage. Traffic would be stopped for a few minutes. The elevator alarm will shut off and people will get back in. And so on...

      This is pretty useless if you're at the epicenter, but gives you increasing amounts of warning as you get further away. It also lets emergency personnel outside the quake zone know that they'd better start getting ready to head toward the epicenter, because they'll be needed very soon.

      If The Big One ever hits, this might save a lot of lives and damage to a lot of useful rescue equipment miles from the epicenter.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        And there is some interesting technology being tested that actually forecasts a shake 24-48 hours in advance.

        It's expensive because you need to bury a kilometer or so underground.

    • by Dunbal (464142) *
      Actually it would be pretty good if it warned of any quake you could feel, not just the destructive ones. That way people would start to trust the system when they hear the alarm and then feel the shaking. It would also give them some idea of how much time they have to get out of whatever building they are in (so that the debris can fall on them properly).
    • Heeeeyyyy I ttthiiinnkkkkkkk we arrre hhhHAAAvvving aaa ffffalssssse neeeegatttive heerrrrre!
  • ...he'd have complained about silly "earthquake monitoring stations" and then gone and built a washaway sandbar under the Golden Gate bridge.

    BTW, in case the article bores you, this [stanford.edu] is topical and a bit more fun.

  • Last time when there was this big media circus about an earthquake that was about to hit Memphis TN, they did not bother with these fancy nancy early warning detection system! The stores sold many cans of a patented earthquake repellent spray. It worked. The earthquake never hit Memphis, TN.
  • I'd love to have a twitter alert, SMS or push notification when this happens too so that I could get out of the building. I followed @latimesfires during the station fire and it was really helpful.
  • Hey! You people that live in California! Your going to have an earthquake at some point in your future!

    • by hedwards (940851)

      I realize that you're joking, but up here in Seattle, we've been waiting for our massive earthquake for as long as I can remember. We get minor earthquakes more or less constantly, but you're not going to notice a magnitude 1 or 2 quake without specialized equipment. But, we do know that it's coming and it is pretty well established that it's going to be a huge one.

      In our case all we're able to do is make sure that the building code adequately handles it, emergency responce is planned for and that there's s

      • by DarthVain (724186)

        Well from my limited understanding there is two problems with any such system.

        1) You have no idea where the centre will be, thus you will have to create a large area of sensors in order to provide yourself with any warning.

        2) The larger the distance you are away from the centre, the less devastating the quake will be (not including tsunami, that would be a separate warning system).

        So, that means that the more warning you get, the less you need it. The less warning you get, the worse it will be. So as I see

        • by CycleMan (638982)
          (2) is not entirely true. The Loma Prieta quake of 1989 did little damage at its epicenter, because it was in the middle of a state park. Nothing but trees and trails at the center. 15 miles away at my parents' home, a few bookshelves emptied their contents and a drill press fell over. They live on bedrock. 40 miles away in San Francisco, a baseball game was in process in an area that was partially bay landfill. One of the stadium balconies partially broke off. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge ha
      • by sjames (1099)

        The advantage is tie-in to other systems. 10-60 seconds is more than enough for the elevator to stop at the next floor, open the doors, and lock in place for example. Another example given is to raise the doors at fire stations before the power goes out.

        If the warning is as long as 60 seconds, that can be a LOT less cars on bridges if it's tied in to the lights.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      "Hey! You people that live on Earth! Your going to have an earthquake at some point in your future!"

      Fixed it.

      • by DarthVain (724186)

        Which makes me want to watch science fiction movies to see how many references there are earthquakes on other planets...

        Marsquake Ahhh!

  • The system consists of a Chuck Norris bobble head with a webcam pointed at it.
  • If you build your city - or state - on top of 2 or more very big colliding earthplates. You will get quakes. If history has shown you that there will be earthquakes there... well... don't build there! Sjezus Christ. What good is a warning system that may or may not buy you minutes going to do extra for you when you just know you should not be living there on that scale in the first place. Want a solution that is actually the only good one just might not the one you'd like to hear: GTFO!
    • by hedwards (940851)

      If you look at the US, it's hard to find anywhere that doesn't have earthquakes or some other natural disaster. Personally, I think it's more reasonable to build in earthquake country than in areas where it floods or gets hurricanes. At some point you hit the point where it's just not realistic to avoid the danger and have to focus on mitigating it. There have been some pretty substantial earthquakes back east, it's just that people forget about the 1812 New Madrid earthquake [wikipedia.org]

      • by Cinder6 (894572)

        To my lament (for other reasons), I live in California, but I've been to 46 other states. One very common reaction to "we're from California" is "oh no, I couldn't stand the earthquakes!" This has always puzzled me. I don't even notice the tiny earthquakes we get. I'm sure I'll witness another big one in my lifetime, but hurricanes appear far more frequent and seem to cause much more damage.

        • Native Californians feel the same way about tornadoes.

          The other guys problem is always worse then the devil you know.

        • by hedwards (940851)

          Living in Seattle, we've got that 8+ magnitude earth quake coming, plus several active volcanoes that could at any time decide to cause havoc. That being said, the region has been planning for that for a long time, and fortunately because most of the buildings are recent in construction and or small, I'm not too worried. The main thing that I'm worried about is our aging viaduct, that will go down like that stretch did during the Loma Prieta quake in the late 80s.

          In practice, I think the assumption being th

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Every place has earthquakes.
      And you suggestion isn't an early warning system.

    • If you build your city - or state - on top of 2 or more very big colliding earthplates. You will get quakes. If history has shown you that there will be earthquakes there... well... don't build there!

      "Boy, it sure is strange that over a course of centuries, not one of millions of people had this idea for solving the problem."

      It never occured to you that your simple solution isn't a big screaming clue that you don't know what you're talking about, did it?

    • by istartedi (132515)

      Yes, and then when we're all starving you'll tell us to go where the food is. Guess what?

      It just so happens that mountains and valleys near oceans are great places to grow food. Plenty of water, stable climate during the summer. Before Silicon Valley was a tech center, it was very productive agricultural land. The Central Valley still is, and although it's further from the faults it would still have problems in a "big one", not to mention that it has huge 100-year floods.

      In other words, there is no safe

  • Portions of the system have been in operation since 2001. There have been several moderate and many small events. The system has produced no false positives or negatives, so far. It works by detecting the P-wave (6.2km/s), analyzes it to estimate the intensity of the coming S-waves (3.6km/s), and automatically triggers protective measures if the intensity is expected to exceed MMI V. It does not estimate earthquake magnitude, since that tells you nothing about the intensity at your location. The P-waves con
    • by hedwards (940851)

      The problem though is that there's a significant drop off in intensity related to the distance. Which means that by the time you're far enough away from the epicenter to be able to actually use the information, chances are that the intensity is low enough that it's more of a minor nuisance.

      • You're assuming that nothing useful can be accomplished in a few seconds. The applications in Coachella all complete in less than 10 seconds. A few seconds is plenty of time to duck under a table.

        As for epicentral distance, the intensity drops 90%/100km after the first 100km. If you're 200 km from a magnitude 7 event, the intensity may be low enough to not matter, unless you're up-rupture, or on alluvial soil, or at convergence zone for shockwave reflections, etc. If you're in the SF Bay Area you're less
        • by CycleMan (638982)
          Absolutely agree. Furthermore, if you're in the SF Bay Area, some of the most populated areas are not on bedrock. The bay has been partially landfilled, and many areas that are not direct landfill are still liquifaction zones. Early warning can help these areas which are not directly on faults, but close enough to feel the impact.
        • by hedwards (940851)

          If you're assuming that it would take less than 5 minutes to get the word out then you're overly optimistic. 20 seconds would be amazing if they could do it, but the problem is that even if you do hear the announcement immediately and take cover you're still talking about 30 seconds in most cases. And that's assuming that you're in a place to hear the warning which very few people will be, unless it happens to hit during prime time.

          The problem is that this sort of measure is more of a feel good plan than so

      • by geekoid (135745)

        IT's about 1 second lead time fior every 3.5 Kilometers.

        Also, earthquakes are often word at the end of the fault because all the waves are catching up.

  • 12 out of 120 stations are "up and running". So 10% operational is as good as 100%? Brought to you by the state that can't pay its bills.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      The death star doesn't need to be completely built in order to be fully operational.

      Have you learned nothing from our lord and master, the Emperor Palpatine?

  • One of the reasons I got my armature radio license was the W6FXN repeater at Buzzard Peak near Cal Poly Pomona which was tied to the Running Springs seismic station. When the station detected significant earth movement, the repeater would key up and repeat the audio modulated seismic tone in the background. Depending on the geometry, that provided up to about 30 seconds of warning for areas of southern California. There was talk at one point of building a network to provide a comprehensive early warning

  • I'd like to see this get pushed out as an iPhone notification or something.

    The USGS operates a really neat email/SMS earthquake notification service [usgs.gov]) that allows fine-grained control of notifications.

  • This is scraped directly off the original source, FoxNews.com, which has far more information -- and actually wrote the story. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/23/quake-early-warning-reality-california/ [foxnews.com] Credit where credit is due, y'know.

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...